If this is your first visit, be sure to
check out the FAQ by clicking the
link above. You may have to register
before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages,
select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.

Support for Welsh independence has never been higher than 20% plus I don't think a nation's economy can thrive on sheep herding

Polls are now closed, final result will be confirmed tomorrow morning with the first few regions declaring at around 1am. BBC have already bust out Jeremy Vine and the crappy election graphics.

YES campaigners seem to be all over social media and give an impression that there's an unstoppable tidal surge for independence. Still too close to call though and there's no exit poll as no media outlet has paid for one - which is bizarre as we could be seeing the end of a centuries long union.

Anyway when we all wake up tomorrow the UK will be a fundamentally different country even with a NO vote. This referendum has ensured status quo of a unitary, overcentralised Westminster state cannot last and if Scotland get more powers it will have a domino effect on the rest of the UK's regions.

If Scottish could not leave their distinct national posture even when they had better rights and opportunities as citizens then how long it will take people in Indian held Kashmir or Baluchistan to present an even more formidable challenge ?

I think the best way to neutralize this danger is settlements of other races in these areas. A stage may come when people won't get satisfied with little concessions.

If Scottish could not leave their distinct national posture even when they had better rights and opportunities as citizens then how long it will take people in Indian held Kashmir or Baluchistan to present an even more formidable challenge ?

I think the best way to neutralize this danger is settlements of other races in these areas. A stage may come when people won't get satisfied with little concessions.

That's called settler-colonialism; it's a good idea imo but many Punjabi and Sindhi settlers were killed in B'stan a few years back.

If Scottish could not leave their distinct national posture even when they had better rights and opportunities as citizens then how long it will take people in Indian held Kashmir or Baluchistan to present an even more formidable challenge ?

I think the best way to neutralize this danger is settlements of other races in these areas. A stage may come when people won't get satisfied with little concessions.

Isn't this what Israel is trying to do in Gaza?

Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

Yes there are sports other than cricket. Keep track of what's happening at @SportsPakPassion on Twitter!

Broaden your horizons. Talk about other sports that the world plays in our Sports Corner forum!

Yeah but what they're doing is stupid. Normally how this works is that a much highly populated state or ethnicity occupies the lands of a more sparsely populated state, territory or ethnicity. An example of this can be found in China where the majority Han with 1 Billion + people pool are settling in Xinjiang resulting in what used to be 80% Uighur region to now be 40% Han and 40% Uighur.

The Land of Israel, West Bank, and Gaza has a combined population of around 12 Million or so divided 50% Palestinian and 50% Israeli. The poorer, less educated Palestinians have a much higher birthrate which means that in a couple of decades Palestinians might form 60% to 65% of the population of the entire region. A smart Israeli government would give West Bank independence because Israel already controls 80% of what used to be the mandate of Palestine. What they're doing right now is stupid and will bite them hard because they have taken more than half of the West Bank already which means that the Two-State solution is dead and because of the change political climate of the world and the waning influence of the United States, Israel will be called an apartheid pariah state and will eventually have to make Palestinians citizens which inturn would make them a minority in their own country.

This is unless they remove all settlements but no party has the political courage to so because they will most definitely lose the Orthodox vote and in recent years the Israeli people have become less willing to negotiate and are more hawkish thus dooming themselves in long run.

I don't know whether this is good news or bad news, but i am impressed by the process. This reminds me of Quebec ala separate nation or join Canada. Both Pakistan and India needs to do the same with Kashmir. Let Kashmir decides whether it wants to be independent or merge with Pakistan/India in the similar process.

I don't know whether this is good news or bad news, but i am impressed by the process. This reminds me of Quebec ala separate nation or join Canada. Both Pakistan and India needs to do the same with Kashmir. Let Kashmir decides whether it wants to be independent or merge with Pakistan/India in the similar process.

I'm not sure whether half the population of Kashmir is as literate as the Scottish population. In our region, most people make passionate patriotic decisions rather than look at the bigger picture.

Kashmiris need to be educated on the geo-political, economic impact that a separate country could have on them, specially in todays world where the World has evolved so much. There will be a million questions to be answered which i'm afraid they cannot.

But yes, with the right education and thinking, they should be given a chance as well.

I don't know whether this is good news or bad news, but i am impressed by the process. This reminds me of Quebec ala separate nation or join Canada. Both Pakistan and India needs to do the same with Kashmir. Let Kashmir decides whether it wants to be independent or merge with Pakistan/India in the similar process.

Only if the population demographics are the same as independence times for Kashmir. Now if Scotland had systematically eliminated and driven away pro-British citizens over the years and there had been a neighboring country actively sowing discord and encouraging separation , would you still advocate such a vote as being fair?

Whenever you find yourself on the side of the majority, it's time to pause and reflect. --Mark Twain

I think not enough broadcasts of "Braveheart" in the last few days, was the main reason of defeat

Btw: Congratulations on preserving the Union

I think the Scots have done well out of this. They will have greater powers devolved to them. The West Lothian MP can still vote on English affiars, while the Blackpool MP still cannot vote on Scottish affairs. And they are still covered by the British defence umbrella.

I think the Scots have done well out of this. They will have greater powers devolved to them. The West Lothian MP can still vote on English affiars, while the Blackpool MP still cannot vote on Scottish affairs. And they are still covered by the British defence umbrella.

We could do without the 'British Defence Umbrella'. I am disgusted at the way we go around the World, piggy backing on the USA and invading countries which have nothing to do with us.

I think the Scots have done well out of this. They will have greater powers devolved to them. The West Lothian MP can still vote on English affiars, while the Blackpool MP still cannot vote on Scottish affairs. And they are still covered by the British defence umbrella.

Telegraph reported that Tories are going to push for that only England MPs can vote on England affairs- be interesting that! Labours going to oppose than vehemently.

Telegraph reported that Tories are going to push for that only England MPs can vote on England affairs- be interesting that! Labours going to oppose than vehemently.

I favour a model where there is greater and greater devolution between regions of the UK. We keep Westminster to manage all the collective issues such as defence, comms and transport. The Scots, Northern Irish, Welsh and English have their own assemblies. The English Assembly could move to Birmingham, being more central.

Almost every county had a majority No. Bit of a surprise, and deeply embarrassing for the SNP.

Time for Salmond to get off our screens and resign.

I don't know about that. 46% is almost half the population. Considering all the fear mongering about Euro, the economy and defence that's a significant amount of people who were still prepared to take a leap into the unknown.

I favour a model where there is greater and greater devolution between regions of the UK. We keep Westminster to manage all the collective issues such as defence, comms and transport. The Scots, Northern Irish, Welsh and English have their own assemblies. The English Assembly could move to Birmingham, being more central.

Sounds like a sensible model to me, though dont support moving to Birmingham- as that will just be a waste of taxmoney and a gravy train for contractors to build new infrastructure.

Errrrr.... they have freedom. I argue that they have more freedom that the English, because of their Holyrood assembly.

The Scots are a clever folk and the majority realised that Salmond didn't know what he was doing on the hard issues of currency, EU membership and defence. They would have turned into another Republic of Ireland, Spain or Greece in a decade, with their economy tanking, unable to raise enough tax to pay for their health care and social services, and relying on England for defence.

Errrrr.... they have freedom. I argue that they have more freedom that the English, because of their Holyrood assembly.

The Scots are a clever folk and the majority realised that Salmond didn't know what he was doing on the hard issues of currency, EU membership and defence. They would have turned into another Republic of Ireland, Spain or Greece in a decade, with their economy tanking, unable to raise enough tax to pay for their health care and social services, and relying on England for defence.

In the end they would have been less free than they are now.

I wonder if the English will now also take a similar wider perspective with the European Union?

Errrrr.... they have freedom. I argue that they have more freedom that the English, because of their Holyrood assembly.

The Scots are a clever folk and the majority realised that Salmond didn't know what he was doing on the hard issues of currency, EU membership and defence. They would have turned into another Republic of Ireland, Spain or Greece in a decade, with their economy tanking, unable to raise enough tax to pay for their health care and social services, and relying on England for defence.

In the end they would have been less free than they are now.

Scottish economy and their plans towards EU had nothing to do with those of Ireland, Spain or Greece. You are just building a strawman to justify the existence of the UK, as did the no-campaigners. It's funny how everyone pretends to have critical thinking and objectivity regarding the world's matters but, when it comes to their backdoor, they have the same prejudices and fogged reasoning as anyone else.

The entire NO campaign revolved around using fear to bring the Scottish to their knees they scared them shittless into believing they would struggle on their own.

Can't wait to see Andy Murray at Wimbledon

It was sealed by the 'poll' last week which put the Yes vote two points ahead, this scaremongered everyone into not getting complacent and won the real pole in the end of it as due to purdah they couldn't be any real pushes from either side

It's a good thing in the end otherwise Glasgow would have ended up like Dublin

"If you know the enemy and know yourself, you need not fear the result of a hundred battles"

looks like more non brits wanted to see scots vote yes than actual scots, lols.

Originally Posted by endymion248

Scottish economy and their plans towards EU had nothing to do with those of Ireland, Spain or Greece. You are just building a strawman to justify the existence of the UK, as did the no-campaigners. It's funny how everyone pretends to have critical thinking and objectivity regarding the world's matters but, when it comes to their backdoor, they have the same prejudices and fogged reasoning as anyone else.

justify the existance of the uk? the uk isnt an imposition, whether it be the falklands, or scotland, every recent referendum has shown the uk exists because those who are part of it believe in it.

it was the objectivity and critical thinking of the scots that won the case for the union, contrary to the image of poor simpleton scots, scared into submission by the establishment, those who wanted a yes vote might like to portray.

looks like more non brits wanted to see scots vote yes than actual scots, lols.

justify the existance of the uk? the uk isnt an imposition, whether it be the falklands, or scotland, every recent referendum has shown the uk exists because those who are part of it believe in it.

it was the objectivity and critical thinking of the scots that won the case for the union, contrary to the image of poor simpleton scots, scared into submission by the establishment, those who wanted a yes vote might like to portray.

Top post. The fact that the Scots voted in favour of the Union has certainly riled up a lot of non-British posters on here.

looks like more non brits wanted to see scots vote yes than actual scots, lols.

justify the existance of the uk? the uk isnt an imposition, whether it be the falklands, or scotland, every recent referendum has shown the uk exists because those who are part of it believe in it.

it was the objectivity and critical thinking of the scots that won the case for the union, contrary to the image of poor simpleton scots, scared into submission by the establishment, those who wanted a yes vote might like to portray.

I always love the birth of a new nation. 40-odd % voting for Yes, is a huge segment. Pity that they have to live with the wishes imposed by the rest of the population. this is what demo(n)cracy does, just over half of the population deciding what is good for the rest of them.

looks like more non brits wanted to see scots vote yes than actual scots, lols.

justify the existance of the uk? the uk isnt an imposition, whether it be the falklands, or scotland, every recent referendum has shown the uk exists because those who are part of it believe in it.

it was the objectivity and critical thinking of the scots that won the case for the union, contrary to the image of poor simpleton scots, scared into submission by the establishment, those who wanted a yes vote might like to portray.

Huge row developing. We have a bizarre situation where English MPs cannot vote on Scottish/Welsh/NI issues but the Scottish, Welsh and Northern Irish can vote on English issues.

Cameron wants this West Lothian Question resolved alongside further Scottish devolution, yet the deadline is extremely tight with an election next spring. Tory backbenchers will not allow devo max with resolution to this question. It would impact Labour as they have 41 Scottish MPs - so we could have a scenario where if we do have "English votes for English laws" and that non-English MPs are barred from voting on English matters - a Labour govt with a UK majority but unable to pass bills due to a English Tory majority.

looks like more non brits wanted to see scots vote yes than actual scots, lols.

justify the existance of the uk? the uk isnt an imposition, whether it be the falklands, or scotland, every recent referendum has shown the uk exists because those who are part of it believe in it.

it was the objectivity and critical thinking of the scots that won the case for the union, contrary to the image of poor simpleton scots, scared into submission by the establishment, those who wanted a yes vote might like to portray.

Total bs the whole campaign revolved around getting the Scottish to shitt their pants through the use of emotional lingo e.g heartbreak, divorce, torn apart etc critical thinking my foot they were frightened, many are already regretting that they voted NO

Total bs the whole campaign revolved around getting the Scottish to shitt their pants through the use of emotional lingo e.g heartbreak, divorce, torn apart etc critical thinking my foot they were frightened, many are already regretting that they voted NO

the fact that that no won with such a useless, hasty and haphazard campaign says everything. if anything the attempted scare mongering forced more people to the yes campaign in the first place. a semi decent campaign by no and yes would have lost by a much larger margin.

Total bs the whole campaign revolved around getting the Scottish to shitt their pants through the use of emotional lingo e.g heartbreak, divorce, torn apart etc critical thinking my foot they were frightened, many are already regretting that they voted NO

Poor, simple, naive Scots, the rest of the world is so much smarter about your causes than they are about it themselves.

looks like more non brits wanted to see scots vote yes than actual scots, lols.

The UK is a country stuck in the past and a disruptive force to the european construction. I wanted scots to vote yes and I have no shame in admitting it.

justify the existance of the uk? the uk isnt an imposition, whether it be the falklands, or scotland, every recent referendum has shown the uk exists because those who are part of it believe in it.

it was the objectivity and critical thinking of the scots that won the case for the union, contrary to the image of poor simpleton scots, scared into submission by the establishment, those who wanted a yes vote might like to portray.

Some english people here are saying that Scotland would be in the same position as Greece if they were independent and I am the one who thinks Scots are simpletons who can't fend for themselves?

It has been proven time and time again in Europe that the most prospering nations are the smaller ones with decentralized decision making (especially if ressource rich) as far as social and cultural services are concerned while being under the european/nato umbrella for foreign policy and defense. Many of the problems with spain and greece stem from not enough europe rather than too much europe.
It was not objectivity and critical thinking that prevailed, it was fear-mongering and reactionarism.
I don't even blame the scots or the english, this has been prevalent across the continent on almost every referendum concerning national identity.

Business leaders and campaigners are being intimidated because of their pro-Union views, the Telegraph can disclose. Dozens of Scottish businesses have been subjected to bullying, threats and abuse after publicly questioning independence. Several company directors said that they had received messages threatening to attack their families or boycott their business.

“My wife was upset by what people were saying on the internet [after they came out in support of the Union]," said Alistair Macmillan, a signatory to a pro-Union letter and managing director at White House Productions Ltd. “They were threatening to boycott the business, attack me, attack us”.

“No” campaigners have also faced abuse while they have been canvassing. A partially sighted pensioner, who asked not to be named, said he was punched in the face by a Yes supporter as he handed out leaflets for Better Together in Glasgow. “I was standing at a No station when two young men, aged in their 20s came up to me,” said the 75-year-old man.

“I was talking to one of them normally, but then absolutely out of the blue the other just swung a punch at my head. "I was a bit shocked and fell slightly backwards. I carry a white stick because I am half blind – they would have seen that.”

Huge row developing. We have a bizarre situation where English MPs cannot vote on Scottish/Welsh/NI issues but the Scottish, Welsh and Northern Irish can vote on English issues.

Cameron wants this West Lothian Question resolved alongside further Scottish devolution, yet the deadline is extremely tight with an election next spring. Tory backbenchers will not allow devo max with resolution to this question. It would impact Labour as they have 41 Scottish MPs - so we could have a scenario where if we do have "English votes for English laws" and that non-English MPs are barred from voting on English matters - a Labour govt with a UK majority but unable to pass bills due to a English Tory majority.

That would be true in a single English Assembly model.

What about four such Assemblies - London/Home Counties, West, Midlands and North? Then the traditional Labour areas would have better representation. London/Home Counties would be hardcore Tory in perpetuity, of course.

The UK is a country stuck in the past and a disruptive force to the european construction.

Good. We should get rid of the Euro, dissolve the Treaties of Rome and Maastricht and return to the EFTA model of decentralised decision-making inside a big trading bloc.

Some english people here are saying that Scotland would be in the same position as Greece if they were independent and I am the one who thinks Scots are simpletons who can't fend for themselves?

The Scots who voted with their heads, instead of those who voted after continually shouting THEY KIN NEVVER TEK OUR FREEEEEEEDUM accepted the Salmond's economic model would not work.

It has been proven time and time again in Europe that the most prospering nations are the smaller ones with decentralized decision making (especially if ressource rich) as far as social and cultural services are concerned while being under the european/nato umbrella for foreign policy and defense. Many of the problems with spain and greece stem from not enough europe rather than too much europe.

A combination of a socialist economy coupled to an aging population which a very small tax base, plus North Sea Oil running to a trickle in a decade, would have put an independent Scotland in the same economic pickle as Spain and Greece.

What about four such Assemblies - London/Home Counties, West, Midlands and North? Then the traditional Labour areas would have better representation. London/Home Counties would be hardcore Tory in perpetuity, of course.

What about four such Assemblies - London/Home Counties, West, Midlands and North? Then the traditional Labour areas would have better representation. London/Home Counties would be hardcore Tory in perpetuity, of course.

I like the idea of a city-region model which is currently is supported by the three main parties - but whether they are willing to grant the city-regions substantial powers remains to be seen. The think-tank ResPublica propose that they should have tax-setting powers.

IMO the national parliament should really be in control of foreign affairs, budget, security/defence, energy and immigration. Everything else should be devolved.

I know its a hard sell to call for more politicians but some suggestions would be a regional assembly for the North East of England, some areas of the South East could be incorporated into the London Assembly, places like Birmingham, Greater Manchester and Leeds could simply have powers transferred to existing (or merged) local governments and Cornwall to its Unitary Council.

And if none of that works then the North must launch a War of Independence and secede from the United Kingdom to set up a Republic of the North ! OK I kid on the last bit.

One more point - has politics gone through an Ashes 2005 moment in so far as that Ashes reinvigorated cricket in the UK, has this Scottish Referendum reignited interest in British politics ?

Grassroots activism was at the core of this referendum and it made for a refreshing change. Political discourse has lit up homes and pubs and community centres around Scotland. Its no wonder that the mainstream political parties have become somewhat disconnected from voters - voters stopped joining them, stopped being active in them, stopped fundraising, stopped going to Conservative, Liberal and Labour clubs - there's a whole layer of our political culture there that has been allowed to decline and atrophy.

And people wonder why people are disillusioned with politics - if you're looking for the guilty, you need only look into a mirror. We became complacent, and something was lost along the way. And nationalists of all stripes, whether it's the fair-seeming human face of nationalism of the SNP or the demagogic facade of the beer-swilling everyman that UKIP pretends to be, prey upon that disillusion and capitalise on it, like parasites on a sick beast.

There's not long to go now until the start of the election campaign, let's hope the momentum continues into the new year.

I dont know much about any co untried politics, so I usually refuse to comment on political discussions - that is apart from this Scottish referendum which I did get caught up in. So with that in mind I will give my 2 cents worth @Donal Cozzie @James @Markhor @Robert

Just reading through some posts on here and it's really interesting. People outside Scotland - not just on this forum, but in general - really wanted to see Scotland go independent. Having said that - the Yes campaign was never 'on top'. Even in the last month, when the Yes campaign had gathered momentum, no one really thought that it would be a Yes vote.

As far as 'No' winning goes - it was never a case of being scared into saying 'No'. The fact that so many English politicians and people were so adamant that Scotland can't survive on it's own, and were trying to scare the Scots, just meant that they pushed more people to vote Yes IMO.

It was simply a case of heart VS brain.

Until the last second, I was still 50-50 but in the end I voted No. It wasn't because I thought Scotland needed the UK or because I was bullied into it. It was simply a case of SNP and Alex Salmond were not able to convince me that they would be able to improve Scotland and make it a better place. A lot of people just needed a better leader to rally behind, and they would have voted Yes. A leader who could give solid answers for what the future would be for an independent Scotland rather than if's and but's. Scotland no doubt has the potential to prosper, but you need the correct leadership to prosper - Pakistan is a prime example of this. My head just wouldn't allow me to plunge Scotland into that uncertain future due to a spur of the moment passionate decision.

I totally understand why people voted Yes. As @Kean0 mentioned - the fact that Scotland has to be at war because the UK is at war is really frustrating. Similarly, who doesn't wanna be independent? Ofcourse, as I mentioned on the PPCL, I would love to see Scotland as an independent country that makes its own decisions and runs its self. Thats not because I am anti-UK, that is simply because - going back to my initial question - who doesn't wanna be independent? And with that in mind when I looked down at the ballot paper and saw "Should Scotland Be An Independent Country?", I was extremely tempted to say Yes. However, first we need to find the right leader.

There is a very thin line between brave and stupid - you must tread carefully. Now I am not calling the people who voted Yes stupid - but I am calling the people who voted Yes out of fear of being called a coward stupid.

Finally - the thing I found most interesting. Having voted 'No' some of the English press and public are having a field day, with the laughs and the jokes. It's fascinating to me how they can turn a blind eye and play dumb. They just choose not to see the fact how scared shiiitless their politicians and leaders were when there was a chance that UK may lose Scotland. They continue to see Scotland as a 'tag along', despite seeing how desperately all 3 leading political parties came together in a last ditch effort to make sure they don't lose Scotland. If Scotland was to go independent, Scotland's future would no doubt be uncertain - but don't be stupid enough to believe that the remainder of the UK would just carry on along their merry way as if nothing had happened. If you don't believe me, just sit back and think for a second why the British gov was so desperate to keep Scotland in the union.

Until the last second, I was still 50-50 but in the end I voted No. It wasn't because I thought Scotland needed the UK or because I was bullied into it. It was simply a case of SNP and Alex Salmond were not able to convince me that they would be able to improve Scotland and make it a better place. A lot of people just needed a better leader to rally behind, and they would have voted Yes. A leader who could give solid answers for what the future would be for an independent Scotland rather than if's and but's. Scotland no doubt has the potential to prosper, but you need the correct leadership to prosper - Pakistan is a prime example of this. My head just wouldn't allow me to plunge Scotland into that uncertain future due to a spur of the moment passionate decision.

What's wrong with Alex Salmond

As an outsider i thought he put his heart and soul into it but at the end of the day Scotland isn't ready for independence nor has there been traditionally any huge clamour for a referendum

Tbf i'm not even sure why the Edinburgh agreement was first agreed upon

"If you know the enemy and know yourself, you need not fear the result of a hundred battles"

As an outsider i thought he put his heart and soul into it but at the end of the day Scotland isn't ready for independence nor has there been traditionally any huge clamour for a referendum

Tbf i'm not even sure why the Edinburgh agreement was first agreed upon

I only listened to a few speeches by Salmond but I thought he had a lot of charisma and was probably largely responsible for galvanising the Yes campaign to the point that they got to. But like Barack Obama, I think that when push came to shove he was long on rhetoric and short on details.

Yes there are sports other than cricket. Keep track of what's happening at @SportsPakPassion on Twitter!

Broaden your horizons. Talk about other sports that the world plays in our Sports Corner forum!

I only listened to a few speeches by Salmond but I thought he had a lot of charisma and was probably largely responsible for galvanising the Yes campaign to the point that they got to. But like Barack Obama, I think that when push came to shove he was long on rhetoric and short on details.

@chacha kasmiri - exactly! He was very passionate and if it wasn't for him the Yes campaign didn't stand a chance. There's no doubting how genuinely he felt about the campaign, but as @OZGOD mentioned he just didn't seem to have the answers that mattered. It was very much a case of "trust me it will work out" - and maybe it would have worked out, but to me and many others that was way to big a gamble to put on one man.

A fresh drive for Scottish independence will be launched by the SNP this summer as the party seeks to capitalise on its popularity and win over a significant portion of those who voted No in 2014, Nicola Sturgeon has announced.

In a speech to her party's spring conference in Glasgow, the First Minister dramatically reopened the issue of Scotland's future in the United Kingdom by promising to “embark on a new initiative to build support for independence” after the EU referendum in June.

The grassroots campaign will be aimed primarily at so-called “soft No voters” who were willing to be persuaded of the benefits of independence at the 2014 referendum but remained unconvinced by polling day, SNP sources told The Independent on Sunday. It is likely to feature a national tour by Ms Sturgeon, who remains extremely popular in Scotland.

The First Minister stressed that the drive would “not be an attempt to browbeat anyone” who is still staunchly in favour of the Union, but would instead take the form of a national conversation on the subject. The announcement earned her an immediate standing ovation from the 3,500 SNP supporters gathered in the main conference hall.

“I know that many across Scotland support the Union as strongly as we do independence – I respect that,” Ms Sturgeon said. “But I also know that many wanted to be persuaded in 2014, but ultimately didn't find our arguments compelling enough. So we will listen to what you have to say.

“We will hear your concerns and address your questions, and in the process, we will be prepared to challenge some of our own answers. And, patiently and respectfully, we will seek to convince you that independence really does offer the best future for Scotland.”

Describing independence as a “beautiful dream”, the First Minister added: “Our success will depend on the strength of our arguments and the clarity of our vision. It will mean convincing the people of this country that independence is right, not for yesterday's world, but for the complex, challenging and increasingly interdependent world that we live in today.”

The SNP's strategists believe they only need to convince around 15 per cent of wavering Scots to back independence to be confident of winning a second referendum, having secured 45 per cent of the national vote in 2014 from a much lower starting point. Recent opinion polls on the subject show that the country is still divided down the middle on the issue.

The new drive will be funded entirely by the SNP, to avoid accusations that the party is using Scottish taxpayers' money to bring about the break-up of the Union. Campaigning is unlikely to begin before July, so it does not interfere with the build up to May's Scottish Parliament election and the EU referendum in June.

The announcement will go some way to placating those SNP supporters who are keen for the party to push for a second referendum as soon as possible, but will also leave it open to criticism that it is obsessed with the issue of independence.

Scottish Conservative leader Ruth Davidson said the new campaign proved that the SNP “just isn't prepared to let this go”, while Scottish Labour said the economic case for leaving the Union was “dead” due to the collapse in the price of North Sea oil. “Most Scots don't want to go through another referendum,” a spokesman added.
Scottish independence: Referendum results in pictures

With less than two months until the Holyrood election – at which the SNP is expected to achieve a comfortably majority – Ms Sturgeon also used her speech to outline the detail of several policies. The most significant was a pledge to channel more money into schools through reforms to the council tax, in an attempt to close the so-called “attainment gap” between rich and poor pupils.

Around £100 million a year will be raised by making Scots who live in larger homes pay more in tax to local authorities, with this cash going “direct to head teachers”, she said. Over the lifetime of the next parliament £750m will be pumped into the Scottish Government's Attainment Fund, which will be extended to all parts of Scotland.

David Cameron, the Prime Minister, has previously rejected suggestions that the Scottish nationalists should be entitled to hold a second independence referendum during this parliament. Referring to the 2014 referendum, he said: “I think it is important that a referendum is legal and properly constituted and that is what we had, and it was decisive, so I do not see the need for another one.”

Meanwhile had independence actually materialised (independence day was meant to be 24 March 2016) this is what the country would have faced.

Oil’s collapse blows a hole in Scotland’s finances

f Scotland had voted to leave the UK in the 2014 referendum, it would be a fortnight away from the target date the Scottish National Party set for independence. Many Scottish taxpayers may be breathing a sigh of relief when they look at the latest snapshot of the country’s finances.

Scotland’s notional budget deficit widened to 9.7 per cent of gross domestic product in the latest fiscal year, more than twice that of the UK as a whole. Government spending per person remained some £1,400 higher than the UK average. Tax revenues per person — which have historically offset higher spending — fell below the UK average for the first time in three decades, as the contribution from North Sea oil and gas revenues evaporated.

The collapse in oil prices, which have fallen much further since the period these figures cover, has exposed the flimsy foundations of the SNP’s case for fiscal autonomy. Before the referendum, the SNP argued that Scotland could afford independence on the basis of forecasts for North Sea tax receipts in a range of £4.2bn to £10.7bn in 2016-17. The latest projections for the same period range from £0.5bn to £2.8bn, with no prospect of improvement.

Nicola Sturgeon, Scotland’s first minister, has sought to downplay the significance of one year’s figures. These forecasts, however, were always over-optimistic. Moreover, it was always clear that the volatility of oil prices would make it preferable for an independent Scotland to invest North Sea revenues rather than relying on them to fund current expenditure. In any case, Scotland’s onshore revenues are also growing more slowly than the UK average, partly due to demographics.

A deficit of this size is manageable but it is clear that an independent Scotland — which would surely face higher borrowing costs — would need to increase taxes or cut spending to put its finances on a sustainable footing.

Against this backdrop, the SNP has been understandably wary of spelling out how it plans next year to use the new powers on tax and welfare spending that were promised ahead of the referendum. Instead, it has negotiated a fiscal settlement that will protect Scotland’s funding arrangements with the UK for a further six years.

In the run-up to Scotland’s parliamentary elections on May 5, the SNP will have to at least sketch out its intentions. From next year, the Scottish government will have latitude to set income tax rates and bands. This presents the Scots with a conundrum: they do not want to increase taxes on low earners but will struggle to impose higher rates on the wealthy without triggering an exodus to London.

Yet since it is to acquire these powers, the SNP must decide whether to use them to mitigate the effect of benefit cuts planned at a UK level. Given greater discretion over a relatively generous welfare system, it will have to decide whether it can afford longstanding pledges to increase allowances for carers and childcare.

Scottish nationalists are still bitter at the tactics used by the pro-Union campaign in 2014. But Project Fear — the argument that Scotland faced an uncertain, impoverished future outside the UK — worked because the SNP failed to spell out alternatives. The latest figures suggest that the so-called scaremongering was well-founded.

The SNP may face little opposition in May. However, if Britain votes to leave the EU in the Brexit referendum, the question of Scotland’s future could be reopened. If the SNP wants its goal of independence to remain credible, it will have to detail plans to set public finances on a more sustainable path.

You want the UK to exit the EU and simply trade with it on a free trade basis (okay, so do I!)

But you advocate for Scotland to remain under the UK umbrella?

......................................

I think that George Osborne's appalling mismanagement of the wider UK economy combined with temporarily lower oil prices mean that Scotland accidentally dodged a bullet by not taking independence first time around in 2014.

But aside from the Europe question, the UK is locked in a Viola Beach style race to the bottom, because it is now trapped with permanent Conservative government, but not sensible Conservatism but cretinous Maggie-style Austerity Economics.

There is basically no hope for England. Sooner or later it will leave the EU and cement its position as America Lite, with the social safety net trimmed more and more and the country becoming the economic equivalent of Arkansas or Alabama combined with London.

I am no fan of the EU, and I want my country - England - out. But for Scotland, I think the EU has more to offer it than the UK does.

Nicola Sturgeon has confirmed she will ask for permission to hold a second referendum on Scottish independence.
Ms Sturgeon said she wanted a vote to be held between the autumn of 2018 and the spring of the following year.

I was a passionate YES supporter and still am but doubts are creeping in. After seeing the problems of immigration in countries such as Germany it frightens me regarding an independent Scotland in the EU.